Timed to coincide with President Obama’s jobs summit, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich held a counter-summit in Cincinnati, Ohio yesterday, to be followed by another forum in Jackson, Mississippi today.
In Cincinnati, Gingrich opened his first “Real Jobs Summit” forum with remarks on his “Jobs First Plan”, the centerpiece of which is a two year, fifty-percent payroll tax holiday, to be paid for by unspent TARP and stimulus funds.
While President Obama’s beltway summit is exclusive to Fortune 500 CEOs, Nobel Prize Winners in Economics and union leaders, Newt Gingrich’s events are located in some of the areas hit hardest by America’s struggling economy and are open to anyone who wishes to attend. Ohio, where Gingrich’s first town hall was held, currently has a state-wide unemployment rate of ten percent.
In further contrast to President Obama’s more formal summit, Speaker Gingrich’s events have been designed to resemble town halls. After his remarks, Speaker Gingrich opened the floor to the over five hundred attendees who gathered to discuss the flailing American economy.
“We’re designed as a grassroots organization… the process is always one of listening. [Our organization] isn’t about going out and pushing something that everyone has to listen to us about. It’s not top-down,” said Vince Haley, Vice-President for Policy of American Solutions, where Gingrich is the general chairman.
Dan Kotman, a Gingrich spokesman, told FrumForum that they expect more than five hundred people at their Jackson, Mississippi event tonight, where Mr. Gingrich will be joined by Lt. Governor Phil Bryant.
Kotman also told FF that Gingrich and American Solutions are working on expanding the series of Jobs Summits, with more locations to be announced in the New Year.
If you want to catch Newt Gingrich’s ‘real job summit’ tonight in Jackson, Mississippi, it will be streamed live here from 5-7PM EST.
64 responses so far
1 MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:46 pm
How can Obama have a jobs summit after he promised if we passed his Stimulus Spending Spree it would keep unemployment under 8%?
How can Obama have a jobs summit after he’s passed bailouts after bailouts after bailouts that reward inefficient and corrupted employers with more bootey if they just stay inefficient and muddle along?
How can Obama have a jobs summit when he openly attacks America’s largest association of employers and job providers? And courts unions and labor as the voice of the worker? I thought unions killed the auto industry? the steel industry?
How can Obama have a jobs summit when he pressures business to support his version of Health Scare Reform or risk penalty taxes that must make the IRS jump with glee and envy? Or kill 3.6m jobs in the next 10 yrs as the House version threatens?
How can Obama have a jobs summit when he threatens to sign a Cap & Trade bill that will add over $687b in new fines to the economy, ship scarce US capital to 3rd world countries for $4.7b in green improvements and not add a single US job beyond the govt bean counters created to collect and enforce new regs?
I guess that’s what you have to do when you failed on making the case for your Afghanistan surge, you’ve failed to stop the job losses your Administration is fueling, you’ve given up on creating jobs with your golden prized Stimulus Spending Spree plan and you’re stuck not even able to tell if the job you say was created was, in fact, created.
Better another beer summit; it’d be more productive for this crew. Maybe Bill Clinton can call for some hookers to join them?
2 BarryS // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:47 pm
How can Newty the most corrupt amoral creep in creation host an astroturf summit away from a brothel?
3 MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I don’t know… let’s ask either Bill Clinton –an expert on hookers– or his former pal, Dick Morris –a well-heeled (or was it toed) client of some of the best bootey DC democrat money could buy.
Sorry BarryS (et al), it’s still a Beer Summit and hookers for the Obama crew. You can join ‘em in a virtual online chatroom, I bet. Let me ask Elliot Spitzer, he was in charge of arrangements and accomodations.
4 RioRancho // Dec 3, 2009 at 9:11 pm
If I am being asked to choose between (a) Barack Obama, Fortune 500 CEOs, Nobel Prize Winners in Economics and union leaders; and (b) Newt Gingrich and the residents of Jackson, Mississippi, then my choice is (a).
No offense to the residents of that fine city, but I don’t see that their collective credentials in the field of macroeconomics is all that impressive.
Why is Mitt Romeny considered to be an oracle of economic wisdom, but Fortune 500 CEOs are not?
And, my final quibble – I don’t know of any Fortune 500 companies located inside the beltway.
5 advocatusdiaboli // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:17 am
I don’t think either Obama nor Gingrich has any idea how to actually create jobs at all. What they are doing it catering to the capitalists who bloody well already have their means taken care of and hoping for future campaign contributions from them while seeming to care about a problem they have absolutely no clue on how to fix. No politician since FDR has actually created jobs in this nation to any significant degree. Obama is mostly a Negro version of G.W. Bush as far as his actions to date show–and that makes me wonder why so many republicans are in a huff over his election. He’s continuing Bush policies in the main. You would think they’d be pleased.
6 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:22 am
advocatusdiaboli // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:17 am
” No politician since FDR has actually created jobs in this nation to any significant degree. ”
……..Actually 22 million were created on Bill Clinton’s watch
…….Gingrich is pulling a stunt which as far as I can see has been totally ignored probably because it was pushed off the front page by the white house crashing stunt
7 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:26 am
ottovbs:
Many of those jobs, particularly in my field of computers, were triggered by the advent of the Internet–and the continuing explosion in the use of personal computers. Companies like Amazon.com and Google sprung up out of nothing, now employing thousands of workers.
Al Gore would like to take some credit for having promulgated the Internet. Perhaps he should get some credit. But Bill Clinton deserves none.
8 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:32 am
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:26 am
ottovbs:
Actually 22 million were created on Bill Clinton’s watch
“Many of those jobs, particularly in my field of computers, were triggered by the advent of the Internet–and the continuing explosion in the use of personal computers. Companies like Amazon.com and Google sprung up out of nothing, now employing thousands of workers.”
……..Clinton was in office when it happened……those are the rules of the game……you get the credit or blame for what happens on your watch…….you never cease blaming Carter for economic disasters on his watch with which he was only remotely connected…..as ever you’re either very naive or want it both ways
9 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:35 am
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:26 am
…..and btw Clinton left office with this country in better fiscal shape than it had been in for decades…….in seven short years Bush and the Republican congress brought the country literally to the brink of economic collapse
10 RioRancho // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:36 am
sinz54 – Do you agree that Bush deserves the blame for 9/11?
11 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:41 am
….For Sinz’s benefit and any other economic experts here is a monthly chart of job losses from the start of the recession at the end of 2007 until November 2009…….President Obama took office on January 20th, 2009………Sinz works in the computer industry so even he should be able to connect the dots:
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/6/job_loss_12_04_09.jpg
12 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:52 am
So basically things started getting better as soon as Bush and co left office.
That’s to be expected given the disaster of their economic policy. If the trend continues we should be in positive territory by February. The bulk of the stimulus is due to lick in early 2010 so by the fall elections we should have an economy well on the way to recovery. The DOW will be back to a realistic number and the GOP will be seen as hollow fear mongering obstructionists.
I predict that by the Summer all the tarp funds will be paid back, the motor companies will be back in private hands and that will take the sails right out of the “Socialist” BS.
13 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:00 am
The chart looks good. First piece of good news in months.
Nonetheless, I remain extremely bearish in the short and long term (mid we may get some temp effects due to the so-called Philips curve).
14 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:00 am
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:52 am
……Obama took office on January 20, the stimulus bill was passed with no Republican votes (apart from Snowe and Collins) in mid Feb……..SOME as they say MIGHT just see a connection (to be fair some of the credit belongs to Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner (in his old role) for preventing a complete banking system crash (Bush was MIA)
15 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:00 am
RioRancho:
Beginning today, Obama is doing his own Main Street tour. He’s going to Lehigh Valley PA for the same kind of town hall meeting that Gingrich just did.
I hope you’ll remember to criticize Obama’s Main Street tour as just as useless as Gingrich’s.
16 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:02 am
BarryS:
I’ll remember that prediction.
Let’s agree to meet back here by the Summer and see how well your prediction turned out.
17 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:04 am
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:00 am
“I hope you’ll remember to criticize Obama’s Main Street tour as just as useless as Gingrich’s.”
…….No real similarity……Gingrich was pulling a largely ignored stunt intended to embarass a serious meeting while Obama is going to be making use of the bully pulpit of the presidency to rally support for his program which is something presidents do all the time
18 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:15 am
13 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:00 am
“The chart looks good. First piece of good news in months.”
………in fact the good news has been piling up for months if one could but understand it…..as the chart indicates the unemployment stats have been moving in the right direction ever since the early summer……..third quarter gdp was up over 3%……the market is up over 50%…….commodity and oil prices have been on the rebound……inflation is quiescent……..manufacturing and business confidence indices have turned positive……corporate profitability is broadly up……house prices and sales are up…….credit spreads are almost back to normal……..the banks are repaying loans……the car market is annualizing around 11 million units……mamma mia
19 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:18 am
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:02 am
“I’ll remember that prediction.
Let’s agree to meet back here by the Summer and see how well your prediction turned out.”
……He’s being a bit optimistic but the general thrust of his case has a lot more credibility than your predictions of a double dip recession
20 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
In economy, it all boils down to centralized vs. decentralized control. Furthermore, if you accept that value is subjectively determined by individuals, you also implicitly accept that value is not “measurable,” therefore not cardinal, but ordinal in nature.
Seizing firms is centralizing power, and removing the ability for individuals to impact the capital structure around them. The manner in which it is done is fallacious – mathematical models that purport to maximize GDP, yet have no conceivable manner by which to capture value estimations of individuals.
otto, you’re very guilty of projecting your love of Obama on economic data. I personally think we’re looking ahead into very painful stagflation.
21 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:32 am
The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report late Monday on the economic impact of the Recovery Act. The CBO determined that, between its inception in February of this year and the end of September, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has:
• Saved or Created up to 1.6 Million Jobs
• Added up to 3.2% to the Growth of Real GDP
• Reduced the Unemployment Rate by as Much as 0.9 Percentage Points
22 RioRancho // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:33 am
sinz54 – If I can have a and b, fine – but the OP was positing this as a vs b.
23 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:37 am
BarryS, you are a shameless partisan hack.
Saved or created 1.6 million jobs? How would one measure the jobs saved? It’s baldly preposterous.
And once again, I would ask how government spending the public’s money can create a higher GDP? All the same bucket of water. CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS?!?!??!??!
24 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:47 am
Willy P.
They are not my figures, they are the figures of the CBO. You know that independent organization that republicans always quote as gospel on the health care bills.
Obviously you know far better than this independent professional organization. Please post your data and sources to dispute their figures.
25 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:51 am
OK Barry, then you admit you have no idea what you’re talking about. Just like people had faith in anthropogenic global warming, you have faith in the government statistics bureau to make an unbiased case for government intervention.
A good alternative source would is
http://www.shadowstats.com/
26 RioRancho // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:53 am
WillP – why do people like you always quibble with government stats when the say what you don’t want them to say, but you happily quote them when they support your argument?
27 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Willy P it isn’t “The governments” statistics bureau”
It’s purpose is to quote it’s website.
CBO Fact Sheet
CBO’s mandate is to provide the Congress with:
Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and
The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.
On the other hand the source you quote says this about its own statistics.
Disclaimer
John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics
The material appearing on this website is based on data and information from sources we believe to be accurate and reliable. However, the material is not guaranteed as to accuracy nor does it purport to be complete.
Opinions and projections, both our own and those of others, reflect views as of dates indicated and are subject to change without notice. The contributions and opinions of others do not necessarily reflect the views of John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics.
Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument.
So they are basically saying “we make things up”
28 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Barry, that would be called a legal disclaimer. I’m sure if you look at any similar document from, say Morgan Stanley or Charles Schwab, you would see something in the same vein.
On the other hand, the CBO is funded by… congress! From their website:
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-68) provided the agency with $45.2 million in FY 2009 funding.
29 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:16 pm
WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
In economy, it all boils down to centralized vs. decentralized control. Furthermore, if you accept that value is subjectively determined by individuals, you also implicitly accept that value is not “measurable,” therefore not cardinal, but ordinal in nature.
………..Willy you deal in blather……… I deal in reality
“otto, you’re very guilty of projecting your love of Obama on economic data. I personally think we’re looking ahead into very painful stagflation.”
……….True I’ve something of an addiction to competence…….on the whole I’ve found it paid the bills……your “prophesies” (like the one only yesterday predicting unemployment heading to depression levels) have proved almost uniformly wrong so I’ll hazard a prediction shall I?
……. no change in your batting averages.
30 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Of course it’s funded from congress. But It’s NON PARTISAN, what about that don’t you understand mr 1700’s.
31 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:20 pm
lol, non partisan. how pathetically naive.
32 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Otto, I fully admit that I was wrong. I thought we’d have many more job losses.
10% flat is misleading. It does not take into account the people who are on the dole and who have given up looking for a job.
As for dealing in blather, I think you classify anything that does not conform to your take on reality as blather, regardless of its veracity.
33 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:26 pm
and I will repeat this until i get an answer-
“And once again, I would ask how government spending the public’s money can create a higher GDP? All the same bucket of water. CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS?!?!??!??!”
34 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:27 pm
28 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“On the other hand, the CBO is funded by… congress! From their website:”
…….Willy we know you’re a flat earther……but whether you want to accept it or not the CBO outside of flat earth circles is universally accepted as a non partisan scorer of outcomes……that you compare the CBO with “shadow stats” and then Charlie Schwab suggests you are completely off your rocker or are just producing a set constructs to cover an untenable case……if you were in the real world this would cause hoots of laughter but you can get away with it here…..it doesn’t make it any less worthy of derision
35 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm
a flat earther is someone who looks at the great depression, which is the single greatest incidence of government interference with the private sector in american history outside of WWII, and insists that government intervention in order to “rescue” and economy is a positive development in thought. a flat earther would also be someone who insists that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, even after a great scandal has been uncovered.
36 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:34 pm
32 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“10% flat is misleading. It does not take into account the people who are on the dole and who have given up looking for a job.”
……If it’s misleading today it was misleading on January 1, 2009……that happens to one set of stats, U3 is another that is the generally accepted measure of unemployment
“As for dealing in blather, I think you classify anything that does not conform to your take on reality as blather, regardless of its veracity.”
…….In the contesxt of talking about these employment stats, if this isn’t an example of Chateau bottled blather I don’t know what is :
“In economy, it all boils down to centralized vs. decentralized control. Furthermore, if you accept that value is subjectively determined by individuals, you also implicitly accept that value is not “measurable,” therefore not cardinal, but ordinal in nature.”
37 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:39 pm
otto, you say, “In the contesxt of talking about these employment stats, if this isn’t an example of Chateau bottled blather I don’t know what is ”
Actually, the second part of that is a summary of the philosophical debate about the nature of value that goes as far back (at least) to Aristotle. I know you aren’t one for thinking below the surface, so never mind.
The first part about centralization/decentralization was made emphatically by Hayek. A world class blatherer by your standards.
38 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“a flat earther is someone who looks at the great depression, which is the single greatest incidence of government interference with the private sector in american history outside of WWII, and insists that government intervention in order to “rescue” and economy is a positive development in thought. ”
…….Like I said Willy you’re flat earther…….funnily enough I just came across a similar example of Grosse denial in a book I was reading by the English writer A. N. Wilson……he’s a committed God guy and in his attempts to debunk the books of Dawkins/Hitchens et al he indulges in flight of blather quite equal to yours on economics
39 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:46 pm
otto, well now you’ve thrown atheism into your repertoire. i won’t even broach the subject.
the consummate liberal; a cranky old man.
40 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:46 pm
37 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“is a summary of the philosophical debate about the nature of value that goes as far back (at least) to Aristotle…….The first part about centralization/decentralization was made emphatically by Hayek.”
…….discussing the U3 Jan 2008-Nov 2009 unemployment data were they old Friedrich and Aristotle?
41 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:49 pm
otto,
“discussing the U3 Jan 2008-Nov 2009 unemployment data were they old Friedrich and Aristotle?”
Was Einstein talking about physics today, or just yesterday’s physics?
42 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:51 pm
WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“well now you’ve thrown atheism into your repertoire”
…….the topic is irrelevant……it was just an amusing example of your trademark blather ……are you studying for a degree in it ?…….hint: it doesn’t work in the real world
43 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm
41 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:49 pm
” Was Einstein talking about physics today, or just yesterday’s physics?’
……no idea but I’m quite sure he wasn’t talking specifically about the output from a 200 hp diesel engine or nano technology……it appears you don’t know the difference
44 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm
like a good lib, you’re a “pragamatist.” and justifying your knee-jerk “pragmatism,” you are cognitively, like marx, a polylogist. also like a good lib, you are a terrible student of human nature. hence, reflections on the nature of value apparently become outdated as man evolves.
i don’t understand why you are constantly relating my blather to my “real world” success, or whatever. i have a fine job, and even if i didn’t (like 1 in 10 americans), it would not change my thought patterns.
and in a sense, yes, einstein was talking about a 200hp engine and nanotechnology, for they operate under the general laws of physics that he contributed mightily to discovering. you strike me as the type of man who would make an excellent, proficient, and efficient bureaucrat.
45 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:37 pm
again
“I would ask how government spending the public’s money can create a higher GDP? All the same bucket of water. CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS?!?!??!??!”
46 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:40 pm
44 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“like a good lib, you’re a “pragamatist.” and justifying your knee-jerk “pragmatism,” you are cognitively, like marx, a polylogist.’
…….no Willy….like most reasonably well educated business managers and professionals I’m a determinist (Marx was one too but then so are most economists)
” and in a sense, yes, einstein was talking about a 200hp engine and nanotechnology, ”
……..since compact diesel engines and nanotech didn’t exist the time of his great discoveries I doubt they figured largely in his thinking…….they bear the same relation to Einstein as genetic engineering does to Darwin…….your thought “patterns” are bizarre in the extreme….in fact I’ve seldom come across such an ill educated person with such huge intellectual pretensions
47 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Being that you cannot explain the kernel justification for all your schemes relating to the private lives of other americans:
“I would ask how government spending the public’s money can create a higher GDP? All the same bucket of water. CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THIS?!?!??!??!”
I would ask you to reconsider who you call “pretentious.”
pre·ten·tious (prĭ-těn’shəs)
adj.
1.
Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when UNJUSTIFIED.
48 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:37 pm
again
“I would ask how government spending the public’s money can create a higher GDP?”
………Most major government spending programs from French canal building in the 17th century or British investment in the Royal Navy in the 18th century to FDR’s new deal and wartime re-armament programs that have enormously increased GDP…..there are literally hundreds of books that deal with these topics……why don’t you go and buy a couple
49 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I want you to explain it to me in layman’s terms. That shouldn’t be hard, especially from the same person who says, unflinchingly, “Personally, I would have preferred to see MORE in infrastructure.” You can’t and won’t, and there the discussion should end.
You sit here and tell us how war enriches a population. It’s the oldest canard in the book. War impoverishes – guns or butter; not stones to bread.
50 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm
As for my extremely bizarre thought patterns, I would classify them as Catholic (and catholic) in their roots.
51 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:19 pm
49 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“You sit here and tell us how war enriches a population. It’s the oldest canard in the book. War impoverishes – guns or butter; not stones to bread.”
……..Willy….. the US emerged from both WW 1 and WW 2 enormously enriched……the same was true of the British at the end of the Napoleonic/French wars…….all involved copious public expenditures that were instrumental in propelling Britain and the US to the pinnacle of economic power …….now go away and look up determinist since you seem to like dictionary defs…….. and then pop along to Amazon and start looking for some titles that explain how wealth is actually created
52 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:33 pm
49 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“I want you to explain it to me in layman’s terms. ”
….since I haven’t the inclination to run 101 economic seminars for you at no charge …..right on cue Bruce Bartlett comes up with a sensible of description of how the stimulus is contributing to the recovery in employment……the bad news for you is that we’re only in the early stages of that multiplier effect
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/tax-cuts-stimulus-jobs-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
53 rbottoms // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Sarah Palin Hearts the Birthers, unemployment has peaked at just over 10% and is coming down.
That means BOHICA for the GOP in 2010 and 2012 boys and girls.
54 rbottoms // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Oh and 7,000 troops from NATO makes Afghanistan a net plus for the president. Pretty damn good and he hasn’t even been in office a full year yet.
Wait until the stimulus money actually starts getting spent next summer. With thousands back to work directly because of Obama, Bank of America’s billions in bailout money repaid, GM paying back the taxpayers, and the economy on the upswing the GOP is in serious trouble.
55 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm
otto,
I do not need econ 101. I was schooled by a former Canadian central banker.
The multiplier effect is ludicrous. Which is why I ask you to explain it to me in your own words, so perhaps you can realize that you don’t fully understand it. Indeed, it’s incomprehensible.
56 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:18 pm
55 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“The multiplier effect is ludicrous”
……..Well I suppose it would be to someone who denies the existence of other well known economic phenomena like deflationary spirals, or the expansionary effect of public finance during WW 1 and 2 ………and you have obtained an economics degree during which a Canadian central banker denied the existence of defs, economic multipliers and the expansionary effect of wartime US public spending……if true, which I rather doubt, hopefully he’s a former Canadian central banker
57 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:42 pm
no, the professor was very much a Keynesian. i happen to disagree.
You do not understand the concept of money, and it really that simple.
58 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
otto, you never answer a question. you defer to authority. instead of arguing with a close-minded quack, who attributes to his dissenters traits abundantly present in himself (hubris, pretension) i’m redirecting efforts to recruiting more conservatives. i would urge anyone else to ignore this cranky old man, atheist, keynesian, and liberal (all self-admitted, i might add.)
59 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:12 pm
WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:42 pm
……..Willy……I don’t have an economics degree and since you didn’t reply in the affirmative I assume you don’t either……however, I have grad and masters degrees that contained economic components (most of the stuff I’ve forgotten to be honest)…….I’m certainly not a monetary expert but I know enough to get by and in broad terms I was a monetarist before you were born probably ……I’ve also had a lifetime of experience managing businesses in all sorts of economic environments…….believing in some aspects of monetarism, creative destruction, et al from the “Austrian” school is NOT incompatible with belief in mainstream Keynesian economics……you take a way too simplistic and absolutist a view which ignores reality and leads you into crankish denial of well proven theorems and events……I am not however a gold-bug (whose importance in modern monetary management you consistently overstate….Trichet doesn’t spend much time thinking about the price of gold)…….you are welcome to your beliefs but they are not material in any practical sense and I advise you not to make them the basis of an investment strategy……it’s as easy to lose money investing in gold as it is in equities or corporate debt
60 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm
that’s great. i’m done with you. you’re boring.
61 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:19 pm
WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“otto, you never answer a question. you defer to authority.”
………Willy dear boy……I’m not going to argue about whether the earth is flat………I’m satisfied with the body of authorative evidence that says it isn’t….ok
62 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm
60 WillyP // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“that’s great. i’m done with you. you’re boring”
……aaahhh…..no I’m not or you wouldn’t have spent so much time fencing with me…..I linked to your site btw and assume you are the Willyp listed amongst the officers who posted a number of enlightening posts of which I read a few …..if I may say so you need to let some sunlight in at ny young republican central…..why not ask Bruce Bartlett to speak at one of your events…..ho.ho.ho.ho
63 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 7:19 pm
WillyP:
Because investment is NOT a zero-sum game. No matter who the investor is, the return on investment (if it’s the right investment) can exceed the cost by a wide margin.
You could ask the same thing about the great entrepreneurs: Marconi, Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, all needed financing and/or venture capital to get started. You could ask the same question: How does funding any of them from “the same bucket of water” produce a net benefit, when that’s money that had to come from elsewhere? The answer is that you were funding their innovations, which in the long run benefited far more than they cost.
What I think often gets forgotten is that the Government can innovate too. Not often.
But I can think of innovations in which the Government played a major role:
Interchangeable parts (Army contracts for mass-produced rifles in the early 19th century)
Settling the West (the Indian Wars, the Transcontinental Railroad)
RCA, the Radio Corporation of America (Started up by the Navy to get a homegrown supplier of radios)
The Panama Canal
LORAN navigation
Radar
Nuclear power
The Interstate highway system
Space satellites
Jet aircraft
The Internet (commercialized from the Pentagon’s ARPANET survivable network)
Don’t you agree that the benefits to America from each one of these far exceeded the cost to the taxpayer to pay for it?
While it’s politically incorrect, let’s face it: The white settlers (and newly freed blacks) who took Greeley’s advice and went West, developed the West to a much greater degree than the AmerIndians did. These settlers generated huge amounts of wealth from gold prospecting, farming, ranching, etc. Which ended up enriching all those other folks back East. But to do that, the U.S. Army had to get rid of the Indians first. And the Federal Government had to fund the building of the Transcontinental Railroad. All that came from taxpayer dollars.
64 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 7:23 pm
WillyP:
A couple more innovations that were driven by the U.S. effort in WW2 included stored-program computers and the mass production of penicillin.
Again, the taxpayers paid for these developments–but Americans have been repaid a hundredfold by these innovations.
You must log in to post a comment.